Hmm, that is indeed an interesting take on God. It certainly seems to make sense and at the same time provide a convenient explanation for the Big Bang. But there are of course a lot of problems with it--the most prominent ones lying in the definition of terms. This is so important, and is often the downfall of these sorts of things.

One of the most major problems is found in defining the idea of “omniscience.” The mysterious old man’s position assumes that being omniscient does not include knowledge of information arising after the omniscient being ceases to exist. But omniscience means knowledge of literally EVERYTHING. So here we run into another problem: Define “everything.” Does everything constitute everything that exists? All information that is currently existing?--that doesn’t make sense, because time isn’t a factor in omniscience. “Everything” must mean all eventualities, all things that could happen if something were to occur in the present moment. But by the old man’s reasoning, omniscience does not include all eventualities, and things that do not presently exist but nonetheless could exist. Whatever angle you approach it from, the idea of omniscience is flawed in this position.

So yes, a God that is omniscient would perhaps never feel compelled to do anything at all. Except for making Himself ignorant. Maybe the one thing that an omniscient being could never know would be what it is like to NOT know everything. Maybe God, in His omnipotence, made Himself ignorant like a child, as it is the one thing He felt genuinely compelled to do. Lol; but from this perspective, this could explain all the illogicality of most religions.

Christianity (the Bible revised): In the beginning, there was darkness and God knew everything and was all-powerful. So God, in His omnipotence, made Himself ignorant so that He could learn all things the hard way. Eventually it occurred to Him that it might be a pretty neat idea to create a world. So He did, and in His vast foolishness the earth (the centerpiece of His creation) was made little more than a gigantic messy cesspool for hatred and harshness to breed in the primordial soup of poor design. Over the hundreds of millions of years that followed, God sat sucking His thumb somnolently, watching the horrorshow unfold with big placid eyes, until He realized that maybe all those sentient beings down there were suffering, and He should probably do something about that. So, after much internal debate, He thought up a genius plan …

Lol! You are too clever for the book. You've just hitchslapped the shit out of that silly old man. When you read the book, at first sight it may seem plausible, and many people will find it eerily compelling. But sharp minds will quickly detect those details that make the old man's brand of pantheism quite untenable.

His god cannot possibly be omniscient. But if the story were true, such god would explain the rise of atheism in the world. First, the conscious bits in God's debris (us) believe and seek out the almighty Creator, like magnets consciously being attracted to the idea of a whole. Then, as they learn more and more about God's debris universe, they come to realise that the existence of a God is ridiculously improbable...but the ego is everything and they solipsistically say things like "God is in me" or "I'm God." Atheism begins to propagate and becomes more ubiquitous. Atheism is closer to the mind of God as this one begins to wake up and gradually learns the answer to His question. God, by definition, would have to be an atheist Himself for if He is the Prime Mover He certainly would not believe in a personal creator.

By the way, the old man describes different levels that people may be at. He says there are five levels and he's at the fifth, which he claims qualifies him as an "avatar."

The first level of awareness is experienced at birth, when you first become aware that you exist. The second is when you understand that others exist and believe most of what you are told by authority figures. You accept the belief system in which you are raised. Third level, you recognise that humans are often wrong about the things they believe. The fourth level is scepticism. You believe in the scientific method in that it is the best measure of what is true. The fifth level, the avatar, understands that the mind is an illusion generator, not a window to reality. The avatar deems science to be a belief system, albeit a useful one. The avatar ceases to be an atheist as he recognises God's power as expressed in probability and the inevitable recombination of His consciousness...

The protagonist confesses he's at the fourth level. (I would be and wouldn't go any further as I recognised the old man's pseudoscientific assertions in the book that purportedly favour the probability of Gods existence.)

Anyway, you could ask your friends to read this little book before inviting them to the pub for a deep discourse...at the end of which you will stand drunk and victorious like Christopher Hitchens having pointed out all the fallacies and casuistry!

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

It seems like the author is pointing out how all the various theological meditations out there can seem to make sense upon first consideration, when in actuality and upon closer dissection there are deep, profound problems and flaws. The book certainly sounds like a good read! I'd discuss it with my friends at a bar, but we'd be arrested, I think. I do enjoy Hitchslapping my peers, but most of them aren't exactly intellectual giants and it's laughably easy.

Scott Adam's, creator of Dilbert, is very wise. It takes a smart person to step back and use humor and a little tongue in cheek to get a message across without out-right saying it. He might even have tried to express the exact opposite of what he thinks so others can figure out the flaws for themselves. Like chess, always one move ahead. (Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit because I happen to be a fan).

I never read, "God's Debris", but the wise man seems a bit like The Garbage Man character from the show, Dilbert I use to watch on TV a while ago. He always gave Dilbert wise, sage advice and yet he was just the garbage man. And of course Dogbert, much like DeschainXIX was the smartest dog in the room! (I see some similarities)

It would be a fun exercise to debate the existence of Santa Clause or The Boogyman for fun. We could all use the same rhetoric and semantics about faith and science and although we would be denouncing God, free will, the existence of a soul, and the afterlife, it would all seem humorous and nobody is offended. (But smart ones would get it!)

Yes, Scott Adams also exposes the incoherence of free will through Dilbert. "God's debris" is also meant to be a thought experiment that certainly tests the reader. If we are going to do something like it here we need to devise a strangely compelling case for Santa Claus which will spin the brains of most people. Can we do it withSanta? (I'm starting to feel like L. Ron Hubbard!)

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

We could start a thread titled "The Boogeyman Proved Real" (we could use Santa, but that would be more difficult) in which one of us endlessly and stubbornly argues for the existence of the boogeyman. It wouldn't be hard; you'd just employ all of the poetic-but-irrational mantras and dead-end statements and arguments the religious employ. (Or we could get real nutty with it and start another account pretending to be some weirdo who believes in all sorts of things like fairies, the Easter Bunny, and the boogeyman. )

No need for a new account. I'll start a new thread and play devil's advocate. You must refute what I say as we go along. I'll attempt to use casuistry. I think it's worth a shot for fun.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Yes, that's the point. Play devil's advocate and prove Santa real. Or the Boogyman. Come up with the most outlandish case ever!

I was already thinking of this as a funny short story or an article and it actually has some poignant truths. Ask a child about the Boogyman and they will describe a scary being that harasses them at night who resides mostly under the bed, but chooses to live in the closet from time to time. Ask Disco Stu from the Simpsons and he'd say, "Oh yea, I know Boogyman! That man sure likes to boogy!"

I can make just as many jokes about Santa. And I will attempt to prove them real for fun!

This is going to sound very interesting coming from Summerlander. He's definitely the prime candidate among us to be our devil's advocate. Lol, maybe this will be his confessional. All his life the boogeyman has haunted his nightly sleep, and he finally has to talk to someone about it. Perhaps after pages of debate, I'll finally give in and cede the point with an offhand comment like, "Well, I never looked at it that way. I guess the boogeyman really is real."

LOL! Well I've come up with something as I'm falling asleep. I'm waiting for your scepticism so I can build my argument. Maybe I'll lucid dream about it. Goodnight for now guys!

God bless!

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."